# Williams v. Hedican

> Supreme Court of Iowa · April 23, 1997 · 561 N.W.2d 817

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9861075

## Case

- **Full name:** Melissa WILLIAMS and Adam Williams, Individually and as Next Friend of Maxwell Williams, a Minor, Appellants, v. Robert E. HEDICAN and Ob-Gyn Specialists, P.C., Appellees
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Iowa
- **Decided:** April 23, 1997
- **Citations:** 561 N.W.2d 817; 1997 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 130; 1997 WL 195038
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Neuman
- **Judges:** Megiverin, Larson, Lavorato, Neuman, Andreasen
- **Cited by:** 37 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9861075

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding, in dicta, that the approach taken in Thornton and other federal courts restricting Daubert in favor of a conventional Rule 702 analysis was reasonable
- explaining that extensive cross-examination better aids the jury in performing its function than exclusion of relevant evidence
- noting the lack 7 of statistical proof concerning a drug’s effectiveness for treating a condition goes to the weight of an expert’s testimony and not to its admissibility
- explaining standard of review for evidentiary rulings

## Opinion text

NEUMAN, Justice
(concurring).
As the majority readily acknowledges, it was drawn into a Daubert analysis because of the way the parties argued this case in the trial court and on appeal. I concur but write separately to emphasize that the majority’s thorough and scholarly application of Dau-bert should not be misinterpreted as an endorsement of its framework for analysis in future cases. Our own common-law interpretation of Iowa rule of evidence 702 — historically unencumbered by reliance on the federal Frye test — has served us well and will continue to do so.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9861075. Public record. Not legal advice.